RE: smpp loadbalancer

>>first of all: DO NOT cross-post, we consider this "abuse". Either a mail belongs to users@ if it is of usage scope, or devel@ if it is of development scope.
First , Sorry for cross mailing lists ( but I really I can categorize this devel and also user ) lst issue :)
>>What you mean is a proxying the SMPP deliver_sm PDUs to "own" ESME's deliver_sm PDUs for the client side?

>>In an architectural way like this:

>>   SMSC <-SMPP-> bearerbox <-> smppbox <-SMPP-> ESMEs (exeternal SMPP
>>clients)

>>right?

No , this is not what I mean , see the below architecture :

      SMSC <-- ALL SMPP CMDs -->  BearerBox1 <----> SMSBox <----> ESMEs
      SMSC <-- ---Deliver_SM -----> BearerBox2  <----> SMSBox <----> ESMEs

So I can handle Deliver_SM in a separate BB (BearerBox2 ) , to remove the overhead of dlr processing from the BearerBox1

>>Stipe
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Kölner Landstrasse 419
>>40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany

>>tolj.org system architecture      Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
>>http://www.tolj.org/              http://www.kannel.org/

>>mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org           mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org


Best Regards,


Ahmed Shabana
Developer

Mob: +20 (100) 3325373
Email: [email protected]   |  web: www.cequens.com





-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stipe Tolj
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:03 PM
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: smpp loadbalancer

Am 06.09.2012 17:45, schrieb Ahmed Shabana:
> Dears ,
>
>       First , Thank you Guilaume  for your reply .
>
> I need a load balance which aware the SMPP commands specially
> deliver_sm
>
> Because almost all our connection forced to be transceiver , and I
> need to separate the delivery report processing in a separate BB not
> depend on main BBs